In MN. wouldn't he go to Jail?

[Uffdaphil]

Then the defense of others has no meaning.

[John S.]

IMO number 2 & 3 wasn't met- The guy could retreated and called police. He wasn't directly involved. In our state, I bet they guy would have to defend himself in court $$$$$ Just my opinion. I can see the "Dirty Harry" card being played by a gun hating city attorney. And the crooks family would sue him for something. Our nature nowdays.

In Minnesota you must meet four criteria to be legally justified in using Lethal Force:

1. You must reasonably be in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death to yourself or another.
2. You must be a reluctant participant.
3. You must have no reasonable means of retreat.
4. No lesser force would suffice, lethal force was a last resort
http://www.minnesotaccw.com/blog/legal- ... orce-in-mn

1. "Or another"
2. The jacker was the aggressor.
3. Woman was hanging on for dear life. Retreating would not remove threat.
4. Woman at risk of death any second.

Cite some reasons why the guy would go to jail in MN, but not GA. Just cuz we are a libtard state doesn't change the law.

That is why I posted it. He wasn't in any danger, himself.

[MJY65]

That is why I posted it. He wasn't in any danger, himself.

So, by that standard, if a crook has a gun to your wife's head and you can walk away, you must do so?

I don't think that is the intent of the law.

[John S.]

That is why I posted it. He wasn't in any danger, himself.

So, by that standard, if a crook has a gun to your wife's head and you can walk away, you must do so?

I don't think that is the intent of the law.

Dangit now you guys got me thinking my head hurts, lol

[John S.]

This IS a pretty good thread, if I say so myself.

[jshuberg]

In MN when a "defense of another" defense is presented, the duty to retreat and the requirement to be a reluctant participant fall to the person you're defending. That's why it's legally risky to defend someone you don't know, or didn't witness the entirety of the events. If the victim had been a willing participant in the violence, or failed to retreat when the opportunity presented itself, the victim can not claim self defense, and neither can anyone defending them. When you come to the defense of another, you are trusting that the person you are defending has acted in a way where a defense claim is legally justified. If they haven't, there your act of defense isn't justified.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Uffdaphil]

I thought of that when I first saw this story. What if a raging girlfriend threatened driver with gun, then jumped on hood to try a shot through windshield as he tries to flee in his own car? Better be dang sure who is the perp.

[John S.]

In MN when a "defense of another" defense is presented, the duty to retreat and the requirement to be a reluctant participant fall to the person you're defending. That's why it's legally risky to defend someone you don't know, or didn't witness the entirety of the events. If the victim had been a willing participant in the violence, or failed to retreat when the opportunity presented itself, the victim can not claim self defense, and neither can anyone defending them. When you come to the defense of another, you are trusting that the person you are defending has acted in a way where a defense claim is legally justified. If they haven't, there your act of defense isn't justified.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great Response!

[rottenit]

How does this apply:

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

[John S.]

How does this apply:

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

Hmm IANAL, at first I read the part: in the actor's place of abode. But, then, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, The second piece changes everything, doesn't it?

[MJY65]

How does this apply:

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

Hmm IANAL, at first I read the part: in the actor's place of abode. But, then, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, The second piece changes everything, doesn't it?

No, the placement of the comma is important. The commission of a felony in the place of abode is a second situation in which deadly force is allowed, not a condition placed on the first.

[John S.]

Yes, agree. At first, I read it quickly, it "seemed" like it was talking about inside a persons dwelling, then reading more slowley, (like I said, IANAL, which is prolly why i read so quickly), I noticed they were two separate, status's + the OR should make it clear also. Duh?

[LarryP]

If the victim is a family member, we'd all do whatever is needed to end the threat. But if it's somebody you don't know, IMO, it's a gamble that could go real bad. With possible jail time, defense cost , civil suits, possible injury to by standers etc etc, I don't think I'd risk my future. If I did, Maybe I'd shoot the tires out

That is why I posted it. He wasn't in any danger, himself.

So, by that standard, if a crook has a gun to your wife's head and you can walk away, you must do so?

I don't think that is the intent of the law.

[John S.]

You'd still get illegal discharge of Firearm for that! though.

Here is that Fl case which I think is BS!
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... ison-video

A Florida man has been sentenced to 20 years in prison after firing a warning shot at a man who threatened his family.

While no one was injured in the shooting, Lee Wollard, 59, of Devenport, was found guilty in 2008 of aggravated assault, shooting a firearm inside a building and child endangerment, the Daily Mail reports.

If you kill another person in Florida when “standing your ground,” then you may face no charges at all.

[Citiot]

If it's kin, I'm in.

Otherwise, I am simply going to be a good witness.